Top stories in Japan 2021

[John Fairbairn]

I am not one to explore the meaning of words too deeply but if you are claiming that using the words "tsume" is significant I either have to know what it means or simply not know what you are talking about.

It's not that binary. Usually, you have to know what a word refers to, not what it means.

If I ask you what colour livid is, the odds are at least 6-to-1 that we will differ. But if I say "I was livid", you will assume instantly that I was angry. That is because with the simple word "I" I have defined the context. In the same way, a go commentator defines a context. You should then tune into his wavelength.

We communicate by using probabilities, not definitions. Very few people can define "plastic" (in any of its senses) but we use probabilities to distinguish the various senses in a "plastic toy" and a "plastic face." We may even bring in associations: a favourite toy from childhood, or memories of mime artist Marcel Marceau. Communication is very definitely a bipolar process where we bring extra information to the discourse without sometimes even expressing all the elements present. If someone says to us, that's a "plastic material" our probability function can go haywire: made of a polymer material or something that's bendy - or breakable? We need more context. In normal discourse, we wouldn't then say: define plastic. We would just say (as you did), what do you mean? But as soon our interlocutor tells us, perhaps obliquely ("I mean it's a fire hazard") our brain latches instantly on to what is being referred to. And other parts of our brains also light up: where are the fire exits, have we got a fire extinguisher, or calm down and don't overreact.

Go commentaries work in just the same way. When Shusai says, "The tsume may be better" and plonks a stone on the board, we have a point of reference and our brain (subconsciously) takes note of all the associations elsewhere on the board, or remembering a previous game - or a discussion on L19 (if that's not too much of an oxymoron). Eventually, when we hear this word often enough, we will start to feel we know what it means without having any definitions, just as we think we know what plastic means without knowing what a polymer is. We will even, without conscious effort learn that Shusai's tsume has nothing to with tsume go.

Why can't L19 or SL operate with the same normal standard of communication? Is it something to do with how younger players have been learning about the game? They watch videos instead of reading books? They just play instead of studying? They get transfixed before the AI cobra instead of talking to humans? Are they trolling? I dunno.

[jeromie]

Why can't L19 or SL operate with the same normal standard of communication? Is it something to do with how younger players have been learning about the game? They watch videos instead of reading books? They just play instead of studying? They get transfixed before the AI cobra instead of talking to humans? Are they trolling? I dunno.

This is a fascinating set of questions, and I have a few ideas about why you might experience a difference in communication standards on L19 and SL. I think there are good reasons for that standards gap to be accelerating, too, and I don't think it has anything to do with trolling. In my own experience, the vast majority of people participating in these conversations are doing so in good faith.

The proliferation of English language resources for learning the game means that most people never have to learn Japanese (or any other Asian language) to immerse themselves in the game. This is different from earlier generations of go players. Ishi Press was the first major publisher of English language go material, and they didn't exist until 1968. It took quite some time for an adequate English language library to be built up, and many of the early books required greater familiarity with the Japanese language than those published today. But there is more material than most go players are ever likely to get through, so fewer people are turning to the Japanese resources that aided the initial spread of go in the West.

This means, for many modern go players, Japanese terms aren't a part of natural language. They're jargon. And jargon usually is technical and specific in nature. You and I may use the term plastic casually with a "you know what I mean" type attitude, but a materials engineer working on a new project certainly will not. I think the use of language in the go community is often more like that of an engineer than friends holding an informal conversation. (I imagine this trend is probably accelerated by the disproportionate representation of technically minded folks in the go community.)

Furthermore, I would guess there is no one in the English speaking go community who has a greater familiarity with Japanese game commentaries than you. You have seen the words and patterns used in context over and over again; few of us have that depth of experience. You have, of course, shared a lot of your knowledge with us via your books and L19 posts (and I am extremely grateful for your generosity in doing so), but we still don't have the same experience with the material as you. Even those of us who try to understand the terms as they were originally used often lack the context to do so.

I'll also say that this isn't a problem unique to the go community. I'm a pastor, and it's not uncommon for people to want to define theological terms with a level of specificity that the works written in the original language simply don't allow (Or, worse, to attach their own definitions and modify their understanding of the original passage accordingly. I'm sure this happens in go, too.). I also preach (quite literally) the importance of looking at those terms in context rather than trying to form a stand-alone definition, but it's not always easy for people who have no experience of the original text or culture.

All of that to say, don't give up on us. Your insight into the Japanese culture and commentaries is extremely valuable to the go community.

To go back to the conversation on tsumes and group safety in general, I think this is something that's really important for my own development in go. Part of the reason I don't play those sorts of moves more often is not just a fear of gote, it's a lack of enough reading ability to determine when my groups (and my opponent's groups) are truly safe. I can understand that a lot better now than when I first started playing the game, but I still regularly become surprised during the course of a game at which groups come under severe attack. Strategic concepts always go hand in hand with tactical prowess, and I need to grow in both. Of course the commentaries by top professionals have that tactical depth behind them. But even if my reading needs to get better before I can adequately apply it, it's helpful to have the concept of a joint settling move/attack in mind so that I can be on the lookout for that sort of play.